DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 42, 51objected to because of the following informalities: ADU -> Application Data Unit (ADU). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 41, 50, 59 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 41 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
For example claim 41 claim limitation “wherein the RDB is the current value of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discard timer for the data packet of the LCH” is not in the specification of this application. Examiner could not find this limitation in the provision 63335515, and the 371 PCT/IB2023/054193. The specification does mention a PDCP discard timer in [0087] and [0088] “At 510, the method may include setting a PDCP discard timer for an ADU or frame” however there is no mention of a discard timer in context with RDB which is what is claimed. There is mention of RDB alone in for example in [0110-112] “In an embodiment, the RDB is the difference between a PDB for an ADU, frame
or packet and a current time, or an amount of time remaining in a PDB. Therefore,
determining an RDB may include determining the difference between a current time and a PDB for an ADU, frame or packet. The difference is the amount of time remaining in the delay budget”)
Claim 50, 59 are rejected for similar reasons above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 40, 42-49, 51-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adjakple et al. (US20200267753 herein after Adj) in view of Damjanovic et al. (US20230156778 herein after Dam).
Regarding claim 40, 49, 58, Adj teaches A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory ([0361] “FIG. 52B is a block diagram of an example apparatus or device configured for wireless communications in accordance with the embodiments illustrated herein, such as for example, a WTRU 102. As shown in FIG. 52B, the example WTRU 102 may include a processor 118, a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element 122, a speaker/microphone 124, a keypad 126, a display/touchpad/indicators 128, non-removable memory 130, removable memory 132, a power source 134, a global positioning system (GPS) chipset 136, and other peripherals 138. It will be appreciated that the WTRU 102 may include any sub-combination of the foregoing elements while remaining consistent with an embodiment”)
and configured to cause the UE to: establish a logical channel (LCH) for an uplink transmission in response to a configuration comprising a configured LCH priority for the LCH ([0208] “With respect to network controlled resource grant allocation, in one example (Option 1), resource/scheduling grants are common to network slices (i.e. grants are not network slice specific). Data from different network slices may be mapped to the same grant. As an example of this embodiment, the gNB may configure the UE with a resource grant that can be used for the transmission of uplink data from more than one logical channel, where at least some of the logical channels belong to different network slices. The UE allocates the received grants to the transmission of UL data from logical channel channels, where at least some of the logical channels are configured for different network slices. The UE determine through logical channel prioritization procedure, the allocation of the received grants to logical channels for which the resource grants are allocated. The UE may distribute the resource grants to logical channels, where at least two or more of the logical channels belongs to different network slices”, [0239] “In one embodiment, Logical Channel Prioritization procedure is performed when a new transmission is performed. In an example, the RRC controls the scheduling of uplink data by signalling for each logical channel: priority where an increasing priority value indicates a lower priority level, prioritisedBitRate which sets the Prioritized Bit Rate (PBR), bucketSizeDuration which sets the Bucket Size Duration (BSD), value(s) of allowed transmission profile(s) which indicates if data for the logical channel can be transmitted with resources of a grant with the same transmission profile(s) value(s)”);
determine a priority for the LCH for a logical channel prioritization (LCP) procedure based on the configured LCH priority ([0298-300] “Turning now to logical channel priority, the existing LTE logical channel priority definition may be re-used, in some cases. In this scheme, each logical channel is assigned one priority value. The smaller is the priority value, the higher is the logical channel priority … “For example, the logical channels may be assigned two types of priority, parameter k2 based priority and LTE based priority type. The logical channels may then be prioritized first based on the parameter k2 based priority. In case of a tie, in some cases, logical channels may be prioritized using the logical channel priority as per the legacy LTE priority definition”)
and assign, by a medium access control (MAC) layer of the UE, one or more resources for the LCH based on at least the priority for the LCH ([0241] “The MAC entity may allocate resources to the logical channels configured with the grant's transmission profile (or allowed for this grant) in the following steps, for example. At 1, logical channels with Bj>0 are allocated resources in a decreasing priority order. If the PBR of a logical channel is set to “infinity”, the MAC entity shall allocate resources for all the data that is available for transmission on the logical channel before meeting the PBR of the lower priority logical channel(s). At 2, the MAC entity shall decrement Bj by the total size of MAC SDUs served to logical channel j in Step 1. The value of Bj can be negative. At 3, if any resources remain, logical channels are served in a strict decreasing priority order (regardless of the value of Bj) until either the data for that logical channel or the UL grant is exhausted, whichever comes first. Logical channels configured with equal priority may be served equally”).
Adj does not teach and a remaining delay budget (RDB) of a data packet of the LCH.
Dam teaches and a remaining delay budget (RDB) of a data packet of the LCH ([0058] “The new LCH priority definition may facilitate LCH resource priority to each LCH based on relative packet transmission delay bounds. For example, the new LCH priority may be linked with a certain traffic handling and/or UL grant multiplexing”, [0059] “The new/alternative LCH priority may indicate that the corresponding traffic is not to be handled based on a legacy (conventional) token bucket procedure. Instead, the UE may assign absolute priority to an LCH associated with the new LCH priority, in a given transmission instance, based on a modified token bucket procedure. The modified token bucket procedure may conform to a new set of priority rules that take into account new attributes, such as packet delay deadline, when determining the amount of resources to assign to each LCH”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adj to incorporate the teachings of Dam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the system.
Regarding claim 42, 51 Adj does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: determine the RDB by determining the difference between a current time and a packet delay budget (PDB) for an ADU, frame or packet, wherein the difference is the amount of time remaining in the delay budget.
Dam teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to: determine the RDB by determining the difference between a current time and a packet delay budget (PDB) for an ADU, frame or packet, wherein the difference is the amount of time remaining in the delay budget ([0066] “, a UE may determine LCH priority by determining the priority value as a function of the delay deadline and/or jitter (e.g., the higher packet delay of the LCH currently experienced may map to a higher priority)”).
Regarding claim 43, 52 Adj teaches wherein the priority for the LCH is increased based on the RDB being less than a threshold ([0292-293] “In another embodiment, the UE may determine the priority of a resource grant based on the parameter k2, i.e. the UL-assignment-to-UL-data transmission time duration. The UE prioritizes the allowed grants R(h) according to a strict decreasing order of the value of k2. The grant with the smallest k2 value is the highest priority grant while the grant with the largest k2 value is the lowest priority grant”).
Regarding claim 44, 53 Adj teaches wherein the configuration is associated with a radio resource control (RRC) Reconfiguration message ([0134] now to examples RRC logical channel configuration information elements (IEs), FIG. 26 illustrates an example of an RRC logical channel configuration IE and a LogicalChannelConfig information element”).
Regarding claim 45, 54, Adj does not teach wherein the configuration includes an indication that indicates whether the priority of the LCH can be adapted.
Dam teaches wherein the configuration includes an indication that indicates whether the priority of the LCH can be adapted ([0077-78] “At 1210, the network entity transmits, to a user equipment (UE), an uplink grant indicating uplink resources. Resources specified in the uplink grant may be allocated to LCH during a MAN layer LCH priority procedure … At 1220, the network entity determines how the UE is to allocate the uplink resources to one or more LCHs based on a procedure that takes into account relative packet transmission delay bounds for at least a first LCH of the LCHs. For example, the network entity may transmit prioritization parameters based on delay to the UE via the RRC layer.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adj to incorporate the teachings of Dam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the system.
Regarding claim 46, 55 Adj teaches wherein the indication is included in the logicalchannelconfig information element (IE) ([0134] “urning now to examples RRC logical channel configuration information elements (IEs), FIG. 26 illustrates an example of an RRC logical channel configuration IE and a LogicalChannelConfig information element”).
Regarding claim 47, 56 Adj does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to increase the priority of the LCH when packets of the LCH which are pending for transmission are approaching the PDB.
Dam teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to increase the priority of the LCH when packets of the LCH which are pending for transmission are approaching the PDB ([0066] “UE based LCH priority modification may be based on one or more rules. For example, a UE may determine LCH priority by determining the priority value as a function of the delay deadline and/or jitter (e.g., the higher packet delay of the LCH currently experienced may map to a higher priority)”, [0077-78] “At 1210, the network entity transmits, to a user equipment (UE), an uplink grant indicating uplink resources. Resources specified in the uplink grant may be allocated to LCH during a MAN layer LCH priority procedure … At 1220, the network entity determines how the UE is to allocate the uplink resources to one or more LCHs based on a procedure that takes into account relative packet transmission delay bounds for at least a first LCH of the LCHs. For example, the network entity may transmit prioritization parameters based on delay to the UE via the RRC layer.).
Regarding claim 48, 57 Adj teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the UE to ([0292-293] “In another embodiment, the UE may determine the priority of a resource grant based on the parameter k2, i.e. the UL-assignment-to-UL-data transmission time duration. The UE prioritizes the allowed grants R(h) according to a strict decreasing order of the value of k2. The grant with the smallest k2 value is the highest priority grant while the grant with the largest k2 value is the lowest priority grant”).
Adj does not teach compare the RDB, when the RDB, when the RDB.
Dam teaches compare the RDB, when the RDB, when the RDB([0066] “UE based LCH priority modification may be based on one or more rules. For example, a UE may determine LCH priority by determining the priority value as a function of the delay deadline and/or jitter (e.g., the higher packet delay of the LCH currently experienced may map to a higher priority)”, [0077-78] “At 1210, the network entity transmits, to a user equipment (UE), an uplink grant indicating uplink resources. Resources specified in the uplink grant may be allocated to LCH during a MAN layer LCH priority procedure … At 1220, the network entity determines how the UE is to allocate the uplink resources to one or more LCHs based on a procedure that takes into account relative packet transmission delay bounds for at least a first LCH of the LCHs. For example, the network entity may transmit prioritization parameters based on delay to the UE via the RRC layer.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Adj to incorporate the teachings of Dam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the system.
Claim(s) 41, 50, 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adj, in view of Dam further in view of Dass et al. (US20240147572).
Regarding claim 41, 50, 59, Adj, Dam does not teach wherein the RDB is the current value of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discard timer for the data packet of the LCH.
Dass teaches wherein the RDB is the current value of a packet data convergence protocol (PDCP) discard timer for the data packet of the LCH ([0082] “ A delay of such a duration may cause packet discards (e.g., according to a packet discard timer, such as a PDCP layer packet discard timer) and/or dropped or missed packets, which may result in jittery traffic, such as with video call and conferencing applications and other streaming applications”, [0109] “Potentially, the duration of the DRX sleep state 624 may be of a duration that adds enough latency to data transmission of the UE 604 that performance of some applications may be adversely affected, such as by jitter in video calling and conferencing applications and other similar applications having low delay budgets”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Adj, Dass to incorporate the teachings of Dass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification increase the effectiveness of priority handling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH TRAN-DANH FOLLANSBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3071. The examiner can normally be reached 10am -6 pm M-Th.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2411 /DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights